[tc-list] RE: The Semitic Origin of the New Testament

On the language of Jesus - Mr. Washburn addresses one of the most interesting issues: how did Jesus communicate with people who would not have

Message 1 of 11
, Jan 6, 1972

On the language of Jesus - Mr. Washburn addresses one of the most
interesting issues: how did Jesus communicate with people who would not
have wanted/bothered/needed to learn Aramaic or whatever Galilean dialect
used at home or down at the fishing boats.
Since anyone could have walked (I aver) from Philadelphia to Spain and
obtained food, drink and lodging, using Koine, and Jesus dealt with a
range of non-natives, I issue the open question to my Koine students -
did Jesus speak Greek?
As always, absence of facts and documents does not prove any particular
point of view.

Robert Haslach
Washington, DC

On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Dave Washburn wrote:

> Jim WEst wrote:
> > >
> > >Secondly, how can we hope to "establish" a new textual criticism for the
> > >N.T. based upon a complete dirth of Semitic New Testament manuscripts?
> >
> > this is precisely the heart of the problem. there are a few semitic words
> > in the nt and there is little doubt, at least to me, that jesus spoke
> > aramaic. but where is the ms evidence for the claim that the nt was written
> > in some semitic dialect? does anyone know of a single manuscript of any nt
> > text in aramaic?
>
> Agreed. I would go even further and suggest that Jesus also spoke
> Greek, since we have reports that He spoke to Romans,
> Syrophonecians and others would likely would not have bothered to
> learn Aramaic. And aside from the total lack of manuscript
> evidence, I would also suggest that the Greek of the NT shows no
> signs of being translation Greek. I second Jim's DOA conclusion.
>
>
> Dave Washburn
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
> give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
> Psalm 86:11
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: rhaslach@...
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org
>

We have several Semitic NT manuscripts. The book discusses each of them and gives evidence that they stand behind the Greek. James Trimm ... You are currently

Message 2 of 11
, Jan 5, 2000

We have several Semitic NT manuscripts. The book discusses each of them
and gives evidence that they stand behind the Greek.

James Trimm

>This book establishes a Semitic (Hebrew and Aramaic) rather than a Greek
>origin for the New Testament. It takes the reader through an analysis of
>the conditions in first century Judea and the Diaspora while following the
>evolution of the N.T. and analyzes word plays, puns, alliterations and
>misreadings in the Greek text that demonstrate a Hebrew /Aramaic original
>for the New Testament. This book is thorough and packed with footnotes
> establishing a new textual criticism for the N.T. - 77 pgs
>
>Although I am not able to comment on Mr. Trimm's book, I would like to take
>a moment to address briefly a couple of his assertions. First of all, I
>think it is far wiser to say that one may "theorize" (not "establish") a
>Semitic origin of the New Testament. Unfortunately, such an assertion
>falls prey to the same weakness that is inherent within claims for the
>existence of Q, namely that there is absolutely no extant textual
>attestation behind these elusive documents. Show us some manuscripts . . .
>then we may begin speaking about establishment. If we say that we think we
>can establish a Semitic origin for the "writers" of the N.T., then we have
>a much sturdier foundation to make such a dogmatic statement.
>
>Secondly, how can we hope to "establish" a new textual criticism for the
>N.T. based upon a complete dirth of Semitic New Testament manuscripts?
> Perhaps I should not speak for the tc-list, but I think one would have a
>difficult time convincing New Testament textual critics that we should give
>up the pursuit of extant Greek manuscripts as the primary area of emphasis
>in this field so that it can be exchanged for an emphasis fully devoid of
>hard evidence . . . at least I hope that we would not consider such a swap!
>However, if Mr. Trimm is able to accomplish all of this in a mere 77 pages,
>then I would certainly need to read this thorough book for myself.
>
>Doug Petrovich
>Novosibirsk, Russia
>
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: jstrimm@...
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org

... well i dont want ya to give away all your book s info- but what are the dates of these mss? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD

Message 3 of 11
, Jan 5, 2000

At 12:30 PM 1/5/00 -0600, you wrote:

>Yep. And my book tells you exactly what their manuscript numbers are and where
>they are deposited. It also discusses internal evidence that the text of
>these manuscripts stands behind our Greek text.

well i dont want ya to give away all your book's info- but what are the
dates of these mss?

Some of them date back as far as the 4th century. I should add that age is really not a very important factor. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls,

Message 4 of 11
, Jan 5, 2000

Some of them date back as far as the 4th century.

I should add that age is really not a very important factor.

Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew Tanak
manuscripts
only dated to the middle ages. At that time the oldest manuscripts of any
TANAK books by far were Greek LXX manuscripts dating to the 4th century.
Yet NO ONE would have argued based on that fact, that the TANAK had first
been written in Greek and was only later translated into Hebrew.

James Trimm

>At 12:30 PM 1/5/00 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>Yep. And my book tells you exactly what their manuscript numbers are and
>>where
>>they are deposited. It also discusses internal evidence that the text of
>>these manuscripts stands behind our Greek text.
>
>well i dont want ya to give away all your book's info- but what are the
>dates of these mss?
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Jim West, ThD
>jwest@...
>http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
>
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: jstrimm@...
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org

... so nothing really to compare with the papyri as far as age is concerned. ... it is an exceedingly important factor. if you have a copy of the declaration

Message 5 of 11
, Jan 5, 2000

At 05:13 PM 1/5/00 -0600, you wrote:

>Some of them date back as far as the 4th century.

so nothing really to compare with the papyri as far as age is concerned.

>
>I should add that age is really not a very important factor.

it is an exceedingly important factor. if you have a copy of the
declaration of independence that dates to the year 1788, and one that dates
to the year 1850, which one will be most important? which will have greater
intrinsic value?

>
>Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew Tanak
>manuscripts
>only dated to the middle ages. At that time the oldest manuscripts of any
>TANAK books by far were Greek LXX manuscripts dating to the 4th century.
>Yet NO ONE would have argued based on that fact, that the TANAK had first
>been written in Greek and was only later translated into Hebrew.

in fact that has been argued. not succesfully to be sure, but it has been
argued.

... Agreed. I would go even further and suggest that Jesus also spoke Greek, since we have reports that He spoke to Romans, Syrophonecians and others would

Message 6 of 11
, Jan 5, 2000

Jim WEst wrote:

> >
> >Secondly, how can we hope to "establish" a new textual criticism for the
> >N.T. based upon a complete dirth of Semitic New Testament manuscripts?
>
> this is precisely the heart of the problem. there are a few semitic words
> in the nt and there is little doubt, at least to me, that jesus spoke
> aramaic. but where is the ms evidence for the claim that the nt was written
> in some semitic dialect? does anyone know of a single manuscript of any nt
> text in aramaic?

Agreed. I would go even further and suggest that Jesus also spoke
Greek, since we have reports that He spoke to Romans,
Syrophonecians and others would likely would not have bothered to
learn Aramaic. And aside from the total lack of manuscript
evidence, I would also suggest that the Greek of the NT shows no
signs of being translation Greek. I second Jim's DOA conclusion.

... I would also wonder about the linguistic flavor of these mss. If the 1850 copy of the Declaration is in French that shows clear signs of having been

Message 7 of 11
, Jan 5, 2000

Jim West wrote:

> At 05:13 PM 1/5/00 -0600, you wrote:
> >Some of them date back as far as the 4th century.
>
> so nothing really to compare with the papyri as far as age is concerned.
>
> >
> >I should add that age is really not a very important factor.
>
> it is an exceedingly important factor. if you have a copy of the
> declaration of independence that dates to the year 1788, and one that dates
> to the year 1850, which one will be most important? which will have greater
> intrinsic value?

I would also wonder about the linguistic flavor of these mss. If the
1850 copy of the Declaration is in French that shows clear signs of
having been translated from 18th century English, that's a
significant factor as well.